Citation Nr: 9922348
Decision Date: 08/09/99 Archive Date: 08/24/99
DOCKET NO. 95-10 844 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit,
Michigan
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot
disorder.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: The American Legion
WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Veteran and [redacted]
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Martin F. Dunne, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty in the Armed Forces from
April 1954 to November 1957.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) on appeal from a May 1991 rating decision by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Detroit, Michigan, which denied the benefit sought on appeal.
REMAND
The Board remanded this case to the RO in March 1997 for
additional development and subsequent adjudication of the
veteran's claim. Following the requested development,
adjudication of the veteran's claim for service connection
for bilateral foot disorder, and issuance of supplemental
statements of the case, the RO notified the veteran in March
1999 that his appeal was being returned to the Board for
disposition.
While the claims file was at the Board, the veteran submitted
additional evidence to both the RO and the Board, including
May 1999 VA and private medical reports reflecting evaluation
or treatment for the disability at issue. The RO has not
considered that evidence and no waiver of such initial RO
consideration was included with the additional evidence. See
38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c) (1998).
Under the circumstances, the Board finds that a remand for
additional action prior to final appellate consideration is
now required, even though it will, regrettably, further delay
a decision in this matter.
Accordingly, this case is hereby REMANDED to the RO for the
following development:
1. The RO should review the additional
evidence received (by the Board and the
RO) since the case was certified to the
Board in March 1999. After accomplishing
any further development deemed warranted
by the record, the RO should readjudicate
the veteran's entitlement to service
connection for bilateral foot disorder on
the basis of all relevant evidence of
record, and in light of all applicable
statutes, regulations, and case law.
2. If the benefit sought by the veteran
continues to be denied, he and his
representative should be furnished a
supplemental statement of the case and
given an opportunity to submit written or
other argument in response thereto before
the veteran's claims file is returned to
the Board for further appellate
consideration.
The purpose of this REMAND is to accomplish additional
adjudication and to ensure that all due process requirements
have been met. It is not the Board's intent to imply whether
the benefit requested should be granted or denied. The
veteran need take no action until otherwise notified;
however, he may furnish additional evidence and argument
while the case is in remand status. See Kutscherousky v.
West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999); Colon v. Brown, 9 Vet. App.
104, 108 (1996); Booth v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 109 (1995);
Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 141 (1992).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.
The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the
Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or
other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious
manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994,
Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994),
38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1999) (Historical and
Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure
Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide
expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by
the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-
8.45 and 38.02-38.03.
JACQUELINE E. MONROE
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991& Supp. 1999), only a
decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This
remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not
constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your
appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1998).